Can Beckham bring Football to America.

Rinko · Post by **Rinko** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:38 pm

yeah

was disappointed with the us at the world cup - got a lot of talent but didn't deliver as much as i'd hoped...kinda like england.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:40 pm

On one hand, many many kids are involved in soccer, the teams are very diverse and interest in pro soccer is on the rise. ON the other hand, when is "soccer season"?

That's another rub-- the 'big sports' all have a season. Fall is reserved for American football, winter is basketball (hockey in Canada), spring is baseball, and seems like summer is for autoracing and leisure which includes the masses participating in whatever sports. In any season, then, soccer has to go head to head with an already "big" US sports.

[edit] right now in the US, soccer goes up against baseball in the spring.

johniscool · Post by **johniscool** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:58 pm

I hope Beckham becomes a huge celeb here! His wife is hot!

leedsquietman · Post by **leedsquietman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:11 pm

baseball is only on TV still because they put ads on every minute. As it's audience dwindles, more and more ads keep it viable.

Baseball was a popular sport that has been dying a death for years, turn on a baseball game, most stadia are less than 1/3 full during a weeknight and on weekends less than half full unless it's a major grudge match.

Baseball is a meaningless sport that goes on waaay too long. It would be a much better sport (ditto hockey) if they cut the number of games in half so that a game actually means something, instead of 'oh well, we lost but there are 9 other games on this road trip). And then the star players could play a lot more, instead of having to wheel out the 5th choice reserve pitcher just because there has to be a rotation. And like hockey, I hate the fact that the 'World Series' can last 7 games. Have one game in a huge arena like the SUperbowl or World Cup final to decide the champion.

I like baseball, and love to watch kids playing it but pro baseball is too much money for very little entertainment, unless you like critiquing ads.

PurpleHaze · Post by **PurpleHaze** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:44 pm

um NO, tell america leave football alone and stick to theirfake imitationof it, that should be called rugby with pads.

Jackal and Hyde · Post by **Jackal and Hyde** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:46 pm

pix wrote:I've been in the US for 3 years now and I think that it has the potential to become a powerful team (national wise) very quickly. The main reason is because of the amounts of money these guys have and the amount of scholarships these guys can give to kids to play.

Another thing pointing in this direction is that most kids play soccer when they're young. That's really good because that's when you learn better. So they have that already. Kids love to play it - they know what's really good for them.

Now the main thing stopping soccer from growing here is the "gay factor", and until you lose it it'll never gain much popularity. Thing is, soccer is for kids, or for girls, and if you're in high school and play soccer you're probably going end up joining the "unpopular" crowd and be considered a human failure.

A friend of mine says it's also because of the low amount of breaks during the game which makes it difficult for TV advertisement.

But I think it's mostly the "macho man you got to be tough otherwise you're nothing" attitude that invades the mindset of the average american (male) teenager...

I don't really agree with the term "gay factor" but I agree with your point and think its basically spot on. Most American kids growing up all play soccer in teams, leagues, school etc etc etc. From 9 through 15 I was on a soccer team every single year along with everyone I knew and grew up with. Here its just something kids grow out of as there are already too many sports as it is.

As for the other poster (and constant comparison by people over the pond over the years on rugby vs US football) If professional football players didnt wear pads/helmets, there would be an average of 1 death per game. You have 6'9 379 pound men leading with thier heads at full speed sprints into one another. Talking skullcap, here... Although Rugby is cool and extremely rough, its not the same thing, its not played the same way and most rugby players arent as large as professional US football linemen because rugby players have to run way more (endurance). When I watch a rugby game its clear that you dont need pads/helmet to play it without dying. Watching a pro US football game one could only imagine the paralysis and crushed skulls after every play without protection - Once again because its obviously played much differently.

PurpleHaze · Post by **PurpleHaze** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:36 am

Jackal and Hyde wrote:
pix wrote:I've been in the US for 3 years now and I think that it has the potential to become a powerful team (national wise) very quickly. The main reason is because of the amounts of money these guys have and the amount of scholarships these guys can give to kids to play.

Another thing pointing in this direction is that most kids play soccer when they're young. That's really good because that's when you learn better. So they have that already. Kids love to play it - they know what's really good for them.

Now the main thing stopping soccer from growing here is the "gay factor", and until you lose it it'll never gain much popularity. Thing is, soccer is for kids, or for girls, and if you're in high school and play soccer you're probably going end up joining the "unpopular" crowd and be considered a human failure.

A friend of mine says it's also because of the low amount of breaks during the game which makes it difficult for TV advertisement.

But I think it's mostly the "macho man you got to be tough otherwise you're nothing" attitude that invades the mindset of the average american (male) teenager...

I don't really agree with the term "gay factor" but I agree with your point and think its basically spot on. Most American kids growing up all play soccer in teams, leagues, school etc etc etc. From 9 through 15 I was on a soccer team every single year along with everyone I knew and grew up with. Here its just something kids grow out of as there are already too many sports as it is.

As for the other poster (and constant comparison by people over the pond over the years on rugby vs US football) If professional football players didnt wear pads/helmets, there would be an average of 1 death per game. You have 6'9 379 pound men leading with thier heads at full speed sprints into one another. Talking skullcap, here... Although Rugby is cool and extremely rough, its not the same thing, its not played the same way and most rugby players arent as large as professional US football linemen because rugby players have to run way more (endurance). When I watch a rugby game its clear that you dont need pads/helmet to play it without dying. Watching a pro US football game one could only imagine the paralysis and crushed skulls after every play without protection - Once again because its obviously played much differently.

Instead of shooting down my point you added to it, Its An IMMITATION. Immitations dont necessarily look like the actual thing but you can see most of the traits in there, except for the contact.

Now the thing the americans dont understand, is that beckham being in american playing football will not attrac the likes of C Ronaldo, Messi, Ronaldinho tocome to play in america, instead it will attract players that are not in their peak of their game. Beckham is 32 correct me if i am wrong, thats the age people start thingking of retiring bcuz they wont be able to perform that well. Beckham may bring people to the games but he sure would not up the quality of football in America. The american business men dont look at it as improving the game they look at it as a way to make a quick buck.

mikemc · Post by **mikemc** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 pm

PurpleHaze wrote:um NO, tell america leave football alone and stick to theirfake imitationof it, that should be called rugby with pads.

LOL "and now its time for.... Monday Night Rugby with Pads!"

PurpleHaze · Post by **PurpleHaze** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:29 pm

mikemc wrote:
PurpleHaze wrote:um NO, tell america leave football alone and stick to theirfake imitationof it, that should be called rugby with pads.
LOL "and now its time for.... Monday Night Rugby with Pads!"

i mean no disrespect to american sport, i love basketball and things of that nature, but i am just saying Beckham would not make football that great

ash1 · Post by **ash1** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:50 pm

beckhams how do they get away with it bloody hell

PurpleHaze · Post by **PurpleHaze** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:05 pm

i saw an american saying lastnight on the news that Beckham is great he is "IN HIS PRIME"

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:26 pm

Nope. Not gonna happen. The corporate sports infrastructure is too rigid to allow anything else.

pix · Post by **pix** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:32 pm

well, the "gay" term was not used as derogatory. On the contrary, it meant to bash those who use it for that purpose.

davec1 · Post by **davec1** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:18 pm

no single player can do that.

besides, beckham, while he doesn't totally suck, is far from being an excellent player or something. he's good, not great...

It all just looks a lot like "style over substance" to me. It makes the impression of some guys that watched "bend it like beckham" and now think they got a great player. Of course he'll sell a lot of shirts, and 14 yo girls will like him cause his metrosexuality isn't so threatening.

But on the pitch? no way, you could have gotten so much better (and more) quality for that money. And ultimately, it is quality that can attract more spectators, not a celebrity couple that's good for a couple of home stories and a scandal or two...

Btw, I heard free-fighting was on the rise in the USA. I think that'd be a pity, they'd much rather push K-1.

Free fighting may offer more blood and violence, but it looks horrible, usually a little wrestling match till one gets on top of the other and smashes his brains out.

K-1 is way more interesting than boxing cause it allows kicks and the action is compressed into less rounds, but it's not so no-holds-barred that it degenerates into a contest of who can get on top of the other. It's a lot more pleasing to the eye and has more interesting moves and techniques, as fascinating as the gruesome efficiency of free-fighters may appear...

pix · Post by **pix** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 12:08 am

davec1 wrote: And ultimately, it is quality that can attract more spectators, not a celebrity couple that's good for a couple of home stories and a scandal or two...

you don't imagine how things are way different this side of the pond...

but i agree with you 100% on everything else you say. He was good when he started in ManU. After that he became an average player at best.